Possible WMD in Iraq

[Cbass]

The article you posted is ridiculous, and is merely wild speculation and conjecture. Because Iraq did not exile it's nuclear scientists, or force them to work in a different field, you draw the conclusion that he was keeping them ready for a nuclear weapons program?

Pick, as for your reply, I think you entirely missed the analogy between the rifle and the "dual use items",and simply started bleating about WMD. The point was, that the rifle has an intended legal purpose other than killing people, although it could also be used for that. The "dual use items" also have an intended legal purpose other than making nuclear weapons, although they could be used for that.

Originally Posted by Flatrater

That could be true if the invasion started in 1998, the year the inspectors were kicked out. If I stated 2003 or 2002 then you had a chance but 1998 was before Bush was in office! Or are you implying Clinton started this?

Are you familiar with Richard Butler? The man who withdrew the UNSCOM team in 1998, believing that the US would invade? Iraq did not kick out the inspectors, they were pulled out by their leader.

[Flatrater]

And one more link for you republican haters!

http://www.scaryjohnkerry.com/wmd.htm

[werwolf-23]

Originally Posted by Pick

Oh, c'mon, don't be that naive. Saddam had used WMD's on his OWN PEOPLE before. You can't sit here and say that he would even hesitate to use them on Americans or American allies for a second.

Um, first of all, any Kurd will be happy to tell you that they are NOT Iraqis. Iraqis would agree.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle2098.htm

Interesting link on the whole Kurd-gassin' thing.

You can use a hunting rifle for many different things. Target shooting, skeet shooting, actually hunting, self-protection, shooting varment in your house. But what the fuck could you possibly want to do with a WMD besides use it to harm somebody else??!!!

Um, I was talking about the 'dual-use' stuff we found. Not WMDs. Because, um, there aren't any WMDs to discuss. Anyway, dual-use: You can use a rifle for lots of legal things, as we all know, but it has a 'dual-use' in that you could also murder someone with it. Does it mean you intend to use the rifle for murder, just cuz it could be? No, of course not. Same thing.

You don't hang it up on the wall and admire it! He had no reason for having WMD's and if indeed he did have them, the world is a much better place without them and him , seeing as his track record playing with WMD's is a fatal one.

Agreed -- he had no reason. Also, of course, he DIDN'T have WMDs. I have no reason for owning a death-ray armed flying saucer. Don't have any of those in the shed either.

[tenguzero]

*Reads through thread, looks around, takes stock of general situation*

Wah, wah, waaaahh. Republican this, Democrat that. Saddam COULD have done this with his Uranum supplies, other countries could do THAT with their Uranium supplies. I wish all the nations of the earth would just load up the arsenals they possess, and all just launch at the same time... wipe everyone out. Get it the hell over with. Anyone whining about potential capabilities that could have possibly been utilized to maybe launch against another country needs to just shut up and deal with it. You know what? If you waste your time thinking like that, then you're already a damn victim. News Flash: THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOMEONE WHO WILL POSE A POTENTIAL THREAT IN SOMEONE ELSE'S EYES. Iraq wants to have nuclear capabilities? Good, let 'em. North Korea wants to have nuclear capabilities? Well alright then, all the power to them. People seem to like to use some sort of horribly skewed logic when it comes to the ownership of "bad things" -- and it usually portrays their country in the right. They justify it with all kinds of excuses: "well, we're a good guy country," or "we're a responsible power," or "well, they have a past of violent utilization of said destructive force." Wake up! Nearly EVERY country/major institution has abused their power at some time or another, in some way or another. Many people in our country saw the use of the atomic bombs on Japan as "a quick end to a war that otherwise might have dragged on, so it was the humane thing to do." Yeah, well, I can guarantee you the generations of innocent people who suffered from radiation poisoning didn't see it that way. England's subjugation of Ireland and Scotland, China's oppresive subjugation of Tibet, the Roman empire's brutal expansion, Japan's violent imperialistic conquests, and the list goes on. As I said in a post a while back, we're obviously unwilling to learn from our past, so why spend your time pouring over articles, trying to link Kerry to this, Bush to that, and somehow tying it into an ultimate gloom and doom scenario for the people of the United States (for instance.) That's some real Cold War style conspiring if you ask me. The fact is, either NO ONE is in the right to own these type of resources, or EVERYONE is. But what the hell, if it helps you sleep at night, I'll say it: We have a right to possess a nuclear arsenal, and -enter name here- doesn't. Why? Because we're good and they're bad, of course.

[twospirits]

Good point.

[CougKid3030]

If you found something of mine that you thought should be removed, and demanded (by international law) that you be allowed to come make sure everything was on the up-and-up, and I refused, only allowing you to come in 10 years later, AND I had an entire country at my disposal, I can garuntee you I could hide it pretty well. Just mho on the WMDs in Iraq

[taranaki]

and still have it ready to be deployed in 45 minutes?

Don't think so.

[CougKid3030]

I'd say within 24 hours. He would be the guy that knew where they were, who was guarding them, how to get them, and where they would need to be to become armed and aimed.

[taranaki]

.....but it never happened.Why not?

[CougKid3030]

The time was not right apparently. Cuba HAD VISIBLE NUKES and never fired them. Just because a group or country has them does not mean they will use them right away or on a whim, but they still could at any time they chose. They were just waiting for the right moment.

[T4 Primera]

Originally Posted by CougKid3030

The time was not right apparently. Cuba HAD VISIBLE NUKES and never fired them. Just because a group or country has them does not mean they will use them right away or on a whim, but they still could at any time they chose. They were just waiting for the right moment.

I think that "moment" has come and gone several times now and they were never used. Either they don't have them or they are demonstrating such considerable restraint that it wouldn't matter even if they did have them.

[taranaki]

You have 100,000 men armed to the teeth rampaging across your country dropping bombs and missiles on your children and slaughtering your armed forces like sheep...how much better justification woulfd you need before you use them?

There were no WMD.There are none to be found.Bush lied,marines died.End of story.

[Tehvisseeus]

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him. Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them. It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them.

[Raz_Kaz]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him. Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them. It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them.

He let the UN conduct a search to anywhere they wanted to go...hwo is that refusing? Even after Saddam has been put out of power, they still have not found any hard evidence of Weapons of MASS destrution.....one shell of some gas is a weapon, but how is that a threat to the ENTIRE US?

[driftu]

Originally Posted by Tehvisseeus

Yes we know that Saddam had at least the means to produce WMDs. We also know that he has the willingness to use them against anyone who opposed him.

who doesn't have the ability these days to make or buy WMD's. if he were willing to use them then he would of nuked new york long ago.

Originally Posted by tehvisseus

Contrary to popular belief however, we did not go to war because he had them. We went to war because he refused to prove that he didn't have them.

no, we did start over a war over the WMD's. remember bush getting up giving speechs about how saddam was a threat and he has weapons of mass destruction. if he had he would of used them.

Originally Posted by tehvisseeus

It was not the responsibility of the IAEA, UN, US, or any other organization/country to find them

just like it is not the responibilty of america to police world.